[Lnc-business] LP of Oregon, National LP Judicial Committee

[Scott L.]

I have no clue whether the Oregon issue will or will not be heard by the
current National LP Judicial Committee.

 

And even if it is heard, I have no idea how the Chair of the Judicial
Committee would vote.


However, I find it interesting that Wes Wagner is complaining about a
potential conflict of interest on the part of the current Chair of the
National LP's  Judicial Committee.

 

See the comment below from Dan Wiener.  Note that Lee Wrights cast the
deciding vote that made this opinion the majority opinion of the National LP
JC back in 2011:

 

http://www.libertyforamerica.com/201109.pdf   (Hat Tip to Dr. George
Phillies)

 

 

"But the LNC and the Executive Committee did purport to recognize and
empower one group (the Reeves 

Group) over another group (the Wagner group) to represent the Libertarian
Party of Oregon. This action was beyond the 

authority of the LNC or EC based upon the Bylaws, and is void"

 

 

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG   

 

 

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/11/lp-nat-com-votes-to-overtu
rn-jc-on-oregon-lp/

 

"Daniel Wiener
<http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/11/lp-nat-com-votes-to-overt
urn-jc-on-oregon-lp/#comment-718885> November 23, 2011 at 12:56 am 

Thomas Knapp at 23:

"My flash take on the SPECIFIC issue at hand is that the matter in question
was not personal to Ruwart, and that Wrights on the Judicial Committee
taking the same position as she did on the LNC/EC was not obviously a
function of their relationship, whatever that relationship might be. - [TK]"

Tom, unfortunately it was more than just Ruwart on the LNC and Wrights on
the JC happening to take the same position. Mary Ruwart submitted a written
argument to the JC in support of the Wagner faction in Oregon, and then she
was a prominent proponent of the Wagner faction in oral arguments and Q&A
during the Judicial Committee's hearing.

Without getting into the nature of Ruwart's and Wright's relationship, let's
just take the most benign analogy: If a lawyer who shared the same home
address as a judge was one of the principal attorneys arguing a high-profile
case in front of that judge, could there be any doubt that the judge would
have a conflict of interest (or at the very least the appearance of a
conflict of interest) and need to recuse himself?"

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

    Scott Lieberman

 

  _____  

We all know you were put up by your allies to get the item on the table just
to bring it to issue to fork it over to the judicial committee where the
chair who is a chief plaintiff in the lawsuit can commit an act of extreme
perversion.

It will have no real affect on the lawsuit.

Given that the members in oregon are poised to leave the LP anyway ...
probably not much long term effect on the LPO.

It will however destroy the LNC.

I don't waste my time on people who have proven they are a nationalist
through their words and ild enough to know better. That is why I closed our
dialogue. 

As far as our internal dispute .. it was over in 2010 and the due already
cast. The LNC made it their dispute by interfering.

     Wes [Wagner]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140813/25a5366e/attachment-0001.html>